THEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXdS 

GERALD C. URN AUSTIN 11. TEXAR 

&-,orable Geo. H. Sheppard 

Comptroller of Publio Aacounts 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Sheppard: 

Opinion No. O-2740 

. 

Re: Authority of the Comptroller to issue 

warrants in payment of claims for whioh 

appropriations were made by former 

Legislatures. 

Your request for an opinion, above subject matter, is a8 follows: 

"1. 'This departnent, aoting under the authority given under Art. 

1035, C. C. P. issued deficiency certifioafe number 1638 September 

1.5, 1931, to Iienry Clark, for his account for witness fees due him 

by the State of Texas, against appropriation number O-1104., The 

Forty-third Legislature, Regular Session, by S. B. No. 100, made 

appropliatimfor the payment of this defiaienay oertificate, The 

aerzclenoy certificate, supported by valid olaim in due form, wae 

presented to the Comptroller and demand for payment WBS made before 

the appropriation lapsed, or expired, The olaim was audited by the 

Joint Auditing Committee, as provided in said Appropriation Act. 

Under the then interpretation of the law the olaim wae rejeoted and 

no warrant issued in payment of this defioienoy oertificate. 

"Subsequent rulings of the Attorney General and holdings of the courts 

show that the Comptroller was in error in not issuing warrant in 

Dayment'of the certifioate at the time it was presented. 

"mere is yet a balanoe in the appropriation sufficient to pay the 

amount of this certificate. 

"1s the Comptroller authorized to issue warrant against appropriation o-1104, at this time, in payment of this oertificate? 

“2. We have another situation in which the defioienoy certifioate 

issued and ma, delivered to the ormer. Subsequently the a8ppropriation was made for payment of the oertifiaate, but the oertificate was not presented for payment until after two years from the 

close oflthe fisoal year which the appropriation for its payment 

had been madei 
Hon. Geo. Ii. Sheppard - page 2 O-2740 

"V.s the Comptroller authorized to issue warrant in payment of this 

oertifioato against tho appropriation originally made for its payment? 

“3. This department should liko you 

alzo: (This does not i~nvol?ro a claim 

but applies to any ordinary claim.) 

to answer the following question, 

arising under the fee statutes, 

"A situation has arisen -here a valid claim, in due and legal form, 

was proserlted to this department, in 1934, for payment against a 

proper appropriation made for that year. For some reason, either 

from a misinterpretation of the statutes governing payment of the 

claim, or t'nat it '~ia:~ withheldawaiting the outcome.of pending litigatioye 

that would dstormino its Lwgality, or through.neg?igonco, the 

Comptroller failed to i,ssue a warrant at the ttile the olaim was 

presented. It is now admitted that the Comptroller should have i,ssued 

uvarmnt ;n payment of this claim upon presentment. Demand 'Is now made 

upon this department to issue warrant in payment of GUS claim against 

the appropriation mads for same in 1934. 

":s this department authorized to issue the warrent?" 

it-is the opinion of this department that each of your questions should 

be answerad in the affirmative. 

If the respective claims were valid claims-- and it appears the Legi.slature has so treated them -- and an appropriation was made for their 

payment, :7e see no reason why proper v:arraj?ts should not issue against 

such appropriation so long as it is available. 

The situation is not like the ordinary appropriation to care for an expense 

to he incurred during a fisoal period, which would, of course, lapse et 

,the end of the fiscal period, if the sane'had not been expended, but rather 

it is the setting aside of a sum in payment of a spcoifio already performed, 

or other preexisting debt. 

By. 

Ocie Spoer 

Assistant